• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: SWOP proof standards
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SWOP proof standards


  • Subject: Re: SWOP proof standards
  • From: Ray Maxwell <email@hidden>
  • Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:25:57 -0700

Oakley,

The filters used in a densitometer (I assume that you are using Status T filters) are optimized to isolate and separate the density of each ink. This is a good measure to keep a given set of inks and a printing process constant. These filters are not appropriate for emulating the response of the human eye. Another way of saying this is that matching densities when you use different ink sets (ink jet proofing vs offset press inks) does not say anything about how they will match visually. This is why most standards are moving to colormeteric spectrophotometer (i.e. CIELab) readings. SWOP is moving in this direction. CIELab is a model of human color perception. However, you need a spectrophotometer and software that can map the measurements into CIELab. It is not possible to convert density readings into Lab values without knowing the spectral characteristics of the ink set. You can get a visual match from different ink sets even when the densities don't match.

Hope this helps,

Ray Maxwell

Oakley Masten wrote:

I need a little help here :)

SWOP Standards  1.30  1.40  1.00  1.60   Correct?

Readings from BIG NAME printer's reference proofs

Epson 1.31 1.56 1.06 1.61 What's up with the M reading? Their proof looked like it was still short on Magenta.

Kodak approval  1.25  1.35  0.78  1.55
Are these numbers good or should they also match SWOP
?

They definately don't match! Visually or numerically
to each other. Should they? They should right ?


These were sent with the idea that they would be used
as comparison reference printouts.

Your observations would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Oakley
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden




_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden
References: 
 >SWOP proof standards (From: Oakley Masten <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: SWOP proof standards
  • Next by Date: RE: YCbCr
  • Previous by thread: Re: SWOP proof standards
  • Next by thread: Re: SWOP proof standards
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread